Arbitrary thematic restrictions forcing mechanical limitations.

[Turtlejay]

This is hardly a new, 4e thing, just ask the barbarian/paladin in 3.5 how much alignment restrictions sucked.

In fact, I really liked 4e ditching a lot of these conventions and opening up things for more creativity. I would have a lot more sympathy for you if Skill weren't so powerful that it was borderline broken. Why not just pile all the uber stuff on to one god, Righteous Rage of Tempus, Skill domain. . .why stop there, we could make one class that could use all the goofiest stuff, and stop a power gamer at the door when he showed you his 8th level Munchkin\Ranger (with the Windrise Ports background, so he can multiclass Fighter for the PP).

Point is, Domain feats are already pretty bitchin, and cherry picking gods to glean two superpowered domain feats might be a little over the top. In the end, your DM can upvote/downvote anything, but I'm not sure that as things are, there is a problem.

Jay

 

[Kzach]

Point is, Domain feats are already pretty bitchin, and cherry picking gods to glean two superpowered domain feats might be a little over the top. In the end, your DM can upvote/downvote anything, but I'm not sure that as things are, there is a problem.

The example itself is somewhat irrelevant. It was just a vehicle to couch the argument within and give as an example.

 

[Celebrim]

The example itself is somewhat irrelevant. It was just a vehicle to couch the argument within and give as an example.

That is the way I'm treating it, but the thing is that deprived of your specific example, I think you seem to be making the argument too broadly.

Consider when you say something like:

"Deities are nothing but flavour-text. At the end of the day, they shouldn't dictate mechanical rules."

Why not? I mean seriously, "Why not?"

Several things interest me about this thread. One of those things is the assumption you seem to be making that flavor ('fluff') is independent to or dependent on rules ('crunch'). As a general statement, I find that utterly bizarre. Surely the reason for having rules is to facillitate capturing a particular flavor? Don't we begin with some general idea ('a sphaghetti western RPG, a Barsoom RPG, etc.) and then describe the setting, and then set down rules which hopefully cause specific stories within the game to mimic the reality the games meta-story describes? If a Conan RPG then we write rules which are designed to allow what we read in Conan stories, and disallow what we don't.

If flavor-text doesn't dictate mechanical rules, then what does? Shouldn't crunch first and foremost be dependent on flavor? Isn't that how it has always been?

I'm not sure how to exactly describe what is the new master of the rules in 4e. I think it's got something to do with 'balance' which suggests that it is something like 'competition' from which the rules of 4e spring. Whatever it is, it's clear that you think its prerogatives are being trampled on by not allowing you design a character as you please. But, for my part, it's this new and strange way of thinking about the game which causes me to stumble around at a loss for words and say things like, "4e doesn't feel like it really supports role-playing" and "4e feels video gamey" I know that neither of those things are exactly true, but since I can't fully put my finger on the problem I say vague things like that. There is however some fundamental shift in the way the game is viewed that I think is at the heart of this.

To put my current observations briefly, you apparantly have no interest in playing in the Forgotten Realms, and further that the mechanical design and planning of the character - an aspect of the game almost wholly absent in 1e D&D (though not necessarily absent from other old systems) - has become the game you care about.

 

[Kzach]

To put my current observations briefly, you apparantly have no interest in playing in the Forgotten Realms, and further that the mechanical design and planning of the character - an aspect of the game almost wholly absent in 1e D&D (though not necessarily absent from other old systems) - has become the game you care about.

I don't know how you got to here but this couldn't be further from the truth.

If I only cared about the mechanical aspect of the game then I would cheese my character out and haunt the CharOp boards, looking for every extra bit of cheese I can possibly squeeze out of the rules.

If I only cared about the fluff, then I wouldn't have posted this thread. The character in question that provided the example is a Living Forgotten Realms character I'm building and playing in LFR games at the moment. It has to fit in the Forgotten Realms and more importantly and more pertinent to this discussion, I want it to fit in the Forgotten Realms.

I consider myself a powergaming roleplayer. I can't enjoy playing a character unless I can successfully marry both the roleplaying and conceptualisation of the character I have with optimised and min/maxed mechanics.

If either is out of whack or, for whatever reason, doesn't 'work', then I don't enjoy the character.

So with my character as the example, technically Power of Skill is far better for him than Power of Strength. But there is no way I could ever bring myself to worship any of the current crop of FR gods that have Skill as a domain. It just doesn't suit the character.

On the flip side, I feel it's somewhat arbitrary that I can't choose what is an optimal choice for the character simply because the fluff to allow me to do so is absent from the setting.

 

[LostSoul]

You don't want to have to choose between portraying the character you want and effectiveness.

So, there are two differing viewpoints:

1. You want to play the character you want, and you shouldn't be penalized for doing so.

2. Playing a certain type of character means that the character will be better or worse at certain things.

Pick one viewpoint, embrace it fully, and roll with it. That may mean house rules.

 

[jdrakeh]

You don't want to have to choose between portraying the character you want and effectiveness.

Actually, to me, it sounds like he has to choose between the character he wants and the character that the rules allow. His complaint is specifically that the rules don't allow him to worship X deity and gain powers associated with other deities because it breaks with the established setting tenets.

 

[Kzach]

Actually, to me, it sounds like he has to choose between the character he wants and the character that the rules allow. His complaint is specifically that the rules don't allow him to worship X deity and gain powers associated with other deities because it breaks with the established setting tenets.

It's not even that. There are gods that suit the domains, they're just simply not written up with those domains.

Hence my argument that these restrictions are arbitrary. There are similar gods to Dol Dorn in the Forgotten Realms, but they just haven't had the luck or chance to gain those two particular domains.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not even that. There are gods that suit the domains, they're just simply not written up with those domains.

Hence my argument that these restrictions are arbitrary. There are similar gods to Dol Dorn in the Forgotten Realms, but they just haven't had the luck or chance to gain those two particular domains.

They aren't really abritrary; they're meant to emphasize different aspects of the god in question.

The question is: do you put mechanical effectiveness in playing the character you want above the setting? (Because you can still play the same Avenger, personality and all, but he won't be as effective at it as if he had the domains you want.)

I suggest that the limitations on domains are put there for a good reason (establishing setting), but if that's not important to you then you should remove them. (Altering the setting is another reason to change the system.)

 

[Kzach]

They aren't really abritrary; they're meant to emphasize different aspects of the god in question.

Dol Dorn has both the Skill and Strength domain.

Would you say that Dol Dorn is unique to Eberron or would you say that there are strikingly similar gods within the Forgotten Realms pantheon?

If it is the latter then why aren't there any gods in the FR pantheon with both the Skill and Strength domain?

 

[jdrakeh]

Would you say that Dol Dorn is unique to Eberron or would you say that there are strikingly similar gods within the Forgotten Realms pantheon?

Dol Dorn is unique to Eberron. There are other gods similar to Dol Dorn in FR. These gods, however, are not Dol Dorn. It seems that you expect rules specific to one setting to be present and/or work the same way in other, unrelated, settings. You might as well be complaining about the arbitrary lack of rules for playing Thri-kreen in FR (after all, the reason that those rules don't exist is because Thri-Kreen don't exist in the setting's fluff).